Beginner dSLR Nikon body under $200 (have F-mount lenses)

<p>Hey everyone. Currently I'm shooting an FM10 and have three "OK" lenses which are detailed on my equipment page. Basically a Vivitar 28mm Wide Angle, Nikkor Zoom 35-70mm, and Nikkor Zoom 70-210mm F-mount lenses, manual focus.</p>

<p>After looking at Adorama, I see a lot of D100 camera bodies and some D70 or D70S models and some D50 in good to excellent condition around 100-150$ USD. Obviously the cheaper the better. What do you think? Which models are good to go after? I already knew a D40 and D60 were good cameras, but not about the rest. Ken Rockwell notes that for majority of the time, one wouldn't need realistically more than about 6 megapixels which sounds fine to me.</p>

<p>This would be my first dSLR as I'm new to photography, but never got started until I found my FM10 and lenses for cheap. Now I wanna know if I can use these lenses on any of these models (it starts to get very confusing, and I need confirmation if I'm considering spending money of course). Or should I just switch from Nikon altogether? I honestly like how the FM10 is and am learning reasonably well at this point.</p>

<p>I intend to continue shooting manually, but AutoFocus and such I hear is so great for taking photos, especially ones you don't have time to prepare for. And honestly, focus doesn't seem to be much of a challenge like exposure is. You simply have to figure out what to focus on and what kind of focus or effect you're after, then make it happen (so I don't think auto focus would hurt me learning to become a good photographer, is this correct?).</p>

<p>Frankly, if you want a digital camera, I'd advise skipping the entire Nikon dSLR route, or any conventional dSLR, unless you're already so accustomed to the optical through-the-lens viewfinder that adapting to anything else would be difficult. Get a good Micro 4:3 or APS sensor mirrorless camera and kit zoom for under $500 and be done with it.</p>

<p>Because you'll probably end up doing that anyway. Or you'll end up spending a couple hundred here for an older Nikon dSLR, another few hundred next year for another used Nikon dSLR, and next thing you know you could have spent the same money, or less, for a brand new Fuji X-A1 or Sony NEX or Alpha-whatever or comparable Micro 4:3 model, with better resolution than any older Nikon dSLR. And you can buy inexpensive adapters to use your three Nikon and Vivitar lenses.</p>

<p>But, if you really want to do it via the used dSLR route...<br /> Since you just got into this with those three Nikon F mount lenses, you'll find those easiest to use with a Nikon dSLR that's fully compatible. The oldest and most affordable Nikon I can personally suggest is the D2H, because I've owned one for almost 10 years:</p>

<ul>

<li>It will meter with most lenses I've tried. I already owned a bunch of manual focus Nikkors over 10 years ago so this was important to me back then. (It isn't so important now - I'm moving toward smaller mirrorless cameras.)</li>

<li>The viewfinder is excellent - bright, clear and crisp enough for accurate manual focusing. There's also a diopter correction for folks with eyeglasses. Also works for me without glasses as my vision has deteriorated just enough the past couple of years to need reading glasses, but not enough to need regular glasses full time. (I tried the earlier D100 and D70 and didn't like the viewfinders for manual focusing.)</li>

<li>Color is excellent in daylight and with daylight balanced flash.</li>

<li>Autofocus is very fast if you decide to stick with Nikon and get AF lenses.</li>

<li>Nikon's TTL flash is excellent with the D2H, if you decide to stick with Nikon.</li>

<li>It's rugged, responsive and generally a pleasure to use.</li>

<li>It gets lots of shots from fresh EN-EL4 batteries which are still available and affordable. My three original EN-EL4 Nikon brand batteries are at end-of-life after almost 10 years, but still functional and still deliver almost half the number of shots as fresh batteries. Not bad for lithium ion rechargeables.</li>

</ul>

<p>It won't cost much now because... and this leads up to the not-so-great stuff about the D2H:</p>

<ul>

<li>It has only 4 meagerpickle resolution. That's just enough for a good 8x12 print. Yes, 8x12. Because 8x10 is a dead paradigm that made sense only to pedantic 19th century Golden-Ratio-addicted glass plate photographers. Also, 8x12 sounds better than 8x10 when you have only 4 meagerpickles to deal with.</li>

<li>It's a heavy, bulky beast.</li>

<li>It is not fully compatible with most pre-AI Nikkors, which may damage the aperture indexing tab on the body. However some non-AI Nikkors and third party lenses can be safely mounted because they don't contact the tab. (Yeah, Nikon is about the most confusing lens mount system you'll find because it's evolved while still being semi-backward compatible.)</li>

<li>The color is often mediocre in artificial light, especially fluorescent and metal halide (typical school, gym, industrial warehouse type lighting). At worst skin colors have unpleasant magenta or greenish tinges.</li>

<li>There were some defective D2H cameras. Nikon Japan - the manufacturer - issued an extended service advisory and extended warranty (which expired a couple of years ago), but distributors didn't always honor the extended warranty. So some D2H's may still be glitchy - like mine.</li>

</ul>

<p>If it's a glitchy model it will be immediately apparent - as soon as you turn it on and click the shutter the first time you'll see an "Err" message. So buy a D2H only from a reliable vendor like KEH, B&H, Adorama or other seller that offers a reasonable return, exchange or repair warranty.</p>

<p><br />Note: These warnings apply only to the D2H, not to the D2Hs. Don't confuse the later D2Hs with folks who owned multiple D2H's, but who are allergic to using apostrophes or single quotes to distinguish between the plural and models that actually end with "s" as part of the model name. <em>(Thanks, Nikon, for making this so easy for anal retentive grammarians to get their hackles ruffled.)</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Ken Rockwell notes that for majority of the time, one wouldn't need realistically more than about 6 megapixels which sounds fine to me."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><A HREF="http://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/dissent.htm">Ken Rockwell is a troll</A>. That doesn't mean he's always wrong. It just means he's more interested in getting people to talk about Ken Rockwell and his Google ranking than he is in providing reliable, accurate information. Occasionally he reviews equipment he's never tried, or barely handled. This week he posted an announcement for a non-existent Nikon dSLR with a faked photo, just so he could be among the first to have a Google hit related to that camera.</p>

<p>So take KR with a huge dose of salts. That way he'll be the only one who's still full of it. But if you can tell the difference between his useful, accurate information and his utter hogwash, trolling and sophomoric semi-misogynistic humor, his posts are occasionally almost, but not quite entirely, the opposite of funny. Rockwell was amusing about a decade ago but his schtick is older than his 1990s style website. </p>

<p>On the other hand, almost every other camera gear commentary writer online is stealing Rockwell's hot sauce, mimicking his blustering BS style. Because blustering BS irritates just enough readers that they'll hit F5 repeatedly to argue with everyone else in the comments section. Which is great for web traffic and ad revenue. But terrible for getting useful info. However there's no question that KR is the Godfather of Troll - camera review trolls. Reading most of the latter day pretenders is like listening to Justin Bieber fail his way through a James Brown cover. Might as well just go to the source and read the original Godfather of Troll.</p>

<p>Personally I prefer Thom Hogan for well informed rants and blustering opinion, because he knows what he's talking about. He's more like the Marvin Gaye of camera gear reviewers, always singing the blues. And if you like deliberately humorous BSing opinions about camera gear, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom">Kai at DigitalRevTV</a> is much funnier. He's like the Bootsy Collins and Parliament/Funkadelic of camera reviewers, bringing in the funk.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The D100 was my first non-PS digital body. It did a fine job with my collection of Nikon lenses from the film side and all of my shots were fine for web publishing or 11x14 prints. In the Nikon line I next moved to a D300, which was a major improvement, and I still use that body 2-3 times/week. Lex's comments on the micro 4/3 alternative is a pretty good one, but only if you really like the ergonomics and (depending on which micro 4/3 body you choose) the effective "doubling" of the focal length of your current lenses. I also use an Olympus E-PL2 micro 4/3 body with almost all of my legacy lenses (Nikon F, Canon FD, Leica M & R, Contax C/Y, Pentax M43, and Olympus OM). Can't be beat for versatility. Again does a fine job for web publishing, but IMHO not up to the Nikon D300's level for printing. If you do much low light photography, based on your budget, you would be better off with the micro 4/3 bodies....they're newer and have much better noise reduction. On the Nikon side, I'd suggest going for a good used D300 rather than D100, because of the better file handling, buffering, and overall quality of output...and if you keep your eyes open, you can find them in the $300 area.</p>

<p>I wouldn't despair of getting a "real" Nikon digital camera, but there are a couple of problems<br /> 1) check for lens compatibility for your mounts (AI, presumably) - not all F-mount lenses will mount and work on all newer Nikon camera bodies: see http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility <br /> 2) for reasons that are unclear to me, since I would very much like to collect older digital cameras, older digital bodies maintain a much higher absolute dollar value than do most film bodies these days (although people often claim the opposite - check eBay "sold" prices).<br /> Thus $200 is pretty low even for older digital bodies, and many of them will work only poorly with your lenses, most likely, if at all.<br /> <br /> Part of the new scene is autofocus, etc, as well as a digital image.</p>

<p>Frankly, I wouldn't let your legacy lenses shape your entry into digital. If you want to stay with Nikon look at their entry models with a decent kit zoom lens - currently there are several kits in the $600 to 650 range. As you've discovered, used and refurbished digital bodies and kits are sold by outfits like Adorama, B&H, and KEH. Of course, eBay is another place to look for used recent models. <br>

BUT, plan on getting at least one modern AF lens too, and keep your existing lenses for the film camera.</p>

<p>Since your other camera is an FM-10, I'm going to assume your lenses are AI or later. That means you can use them with any Nikon digital body. By "use" I mean that you can put them on the camera and take a picture. Unforunately, you will need at least a D200 if you want the meter in the camera to work with them. With any of the D40 through D90, D3000 series or D5000 series cameras you will be restricted to full manual mode with no assistance from the in-camera meter. If you are interested in learning how to shoot in full manual, this is actually a pretty good way to do it. I used manual lenses with my D50 for years. If you want to be able to use the meter, the D200 or the D2H mentioned by Lex are really the only options that are close to fitting in your budget. Both of these are DX bodies (DX is a Nikon term, APS-C and crop body mean the same thing), so you might want to get one of the 18-xx kit lenses as well if you want a wide angle lens. 28mm on a DX body is not very wide.</p>

<p>The suggestion of going with a mirrorless body is also a valid suggestion, with the same caveat that you won't have a wide angle option with your current lenses. On the plus side, you can use lenses from pretty much any manufacturer with inexpensive adapters, something you cant easily do with Nikon DSLR's.</p>

<p>I've been browsing around on eBay for the past couple of weeks for a cheap, older Nikon body. In your price range (for bodies that will focus and meter with your legacy film lenses) I see mostly D70, D70s, D50. Once in a while a D80 shows up in that range, but pretty heavily used. Any of these could work. Obviously they'll be in various stages of use/abuse by the time the prices get that low. It would be good to have return privileges if needed.</p>

<p>My first Nikon was an original F in the early 1960s. I have used, professionally, many non-autofocus and autofocus Nikon bodies and my latest is a Nikon D50. I use it with an array of Nikon lenses and Vivitar 19mm wide angle and 500mm mirror non-auto lenses. I have owned the D50 for seven years or so and it is a fine camera. I see no need to buy a newer one, it does the job for me.</p>

<p>I'm going to second the D200. I use two of them regularly with excellent results. Under $300 from KEH and your AI/AIS Nikkors that work on the FM 10 will meter on the D200. They won't on the D100 or D50. Unlike Lex I absolutely don't like the D2H and I used one quite a bit. It's a rocket ship but it's awful in anything that isn't full sunlight.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>I'd forgotten about the D200. It would be a better choice than the D2H. Better resolution, history of dependability, fewer quirks, more reasonable size and weight.</p>

<p>I can't claim I still like the D2H. For one thing it's a heavy beast and literally painful to carry, but that's due to chronic back and neck pain. I've adapted my shooting style to suit its quirks. My V1 autofocuses just as quickly, if not quicker, is lighter and more pleasant to carry, and has better IQ - not just higher resolution but better in every way.</p>

<p>The D2H is fine for color photos in daylight, as Rick noted, but keep it at or below ISO 400. Even at ISO 200 some chroma noise is visible, so all D2H raw files need at least a little noise reduction. Skin colors look good in daylight and daylight balanced flash.</p>

<p>Nowadays when I use the D2H at all for people pix I almost always convert to b&w. That eliminates any color problems. And the near IR sensitivity is actually an asset for people pix - it adds a bit of a glow and minimizes blotchy skin problems, so b&w conversions from the D2H are flattering to pix of folks outdoors or with faded makeup. Try the shade or cloudy white balance settings in post with b&w conversions.</p>

<p>My D2H color photos of stuff other than people don't rely on any sort of accuracy or resolution. Often I use "flawed" lenses and soft focus lenses, so the D2H flaws are irrelevant. The low resolution limits it as a landscape camera -- the D2X would be better -- but the viewfinder is really good for nighttime photography, very comparable to my F3HP with E grid screen. I keep considering a D2X, not because it's a great camera but because it's compatible with all my D2H doodads: Pocket Wizards and adapter for the 12 pin port; EN-EL4 batteries; AC adapter, so it's potentially useful for studio stuff even if the batteries die.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17670937-lg.jpg" alt="Hymn" width="679" height="450" border="0" /><br /> <em>D2H with Spiratone Portragon 100mm f/4 soft focus lens. Tons of chromatic aberration in addition to the soft focus. None of the D2H image quality quirks are relevant to this type of photography.</em></p>

That is for the good responses guys. My lenses aren't

designated as AI they're fully manual focus. For

beginning, doesn't bother me. I hope to get a good 35mm

prime as I've read about in an article on this site.

 

As far as Nikon goes, I wish to do landscape (live in

the Blue ridge Mountains area) photography,

occasionally abstract or wildlife so maybe telephoto

and macro lenses in the future. For now, a prime to

learn and take on my trips which I write about on my

blog. I would love to take my own photos for my blog

documenting places, people, and things I encounter.

 

I do have the Nikon lenses, but am wondering if Canon

might be a better route to go...does Nikon still lack

in lenses department?

<p>For the record, AI refers to "automatic indexing" and has nothing to do with automatic focus.<br>

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount for details on pre-AI, AI, AI-s etc.</p>

<p>It's how the lens is linked to the TTL metering on certain Nikon manual focus camera bodies.</p>

<p>As for</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon might be a better route to go...does Nikon still lack in lenses department?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am an apostate, a turncoat who switched to Canon from over 30 years of Nikon shooting for reasons too complex to go into here.<br>

Yet, Nikon has never really "lacked" in the lens department. At any given time x, Nikon will be behind Canon in new whizbangs, at x+1, Nikon will ahead. Repeat endlessly.</p>

<p>There are specific reasons to prefer Canon in some applications, Nikon in others; but neither has nor has had any overall superiority over the other in general.</p>

<p>I don't think the lenses you own sound special enough to justify building a system around them, especially with the various limitations they will impose (manual focus, focal length/angle-of-view more appropriate for 135 film, and possibly no or limited in-camera metering).</p>

<p>You'll probably get better results with the relatively inexpensive entry-level 2-lens kit (e.g. 18-55 + 50-200 or so for APS-C, or 14-42 + 45-150-ish for Micro 4/3 sensors from Olympus or Panasonic) from any of the cameramakers, whether it's Pentax, Nikon, Sony, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, or Samsung. Fujifilm are also making some popular new cameras today though since they don't have much of a history in the entry-level market you might find relatively few bargains. And it doesn't *really* matter which body you choose, as they're all pretty good. I would be a little bit reluctant to pick something as old as a D50 or D70. In addition to the lowish resolution, they'll be relatively slow-feeling in operation (responsiveness to button presses), have relatively poor high-ISO performance, will have relatively small LCD screens, etc.</p>

<p>If you don't have a special need for the somewhat deeper Canon or Nikon systems, you probably don't need to limit your choices to these two either.</p>

<p>I agree with Andrew. To maintain compatibility with the lenses you've got, you're looking at a pretty old prosumer level DSLR, like the D200. There have been several generations of image quality improvements since then, alongside handling benefits. A D200 is a lovely camera, but the generation-before-current bottom of the Nikon line D3200 (as an example of a recent cheap camera whose specifications I happen to know - Canon and Pentax are also competitive) has more than twice the image resolution, almost matches the frame rate, has an LCD with four times the resolution (so you can actually see what you shot), shoots video, has the same number of AF points and is tiny (half the weight). The D3200 also takes SD cards, which are cheaper than the CF cards used in the D200. Things move on. A D200 will get you a nicer viewfinder, twin dials and some compatibility merits, and I'm not saying it has no advantages, but going with old tech to support some lenses that, respectfully, aren't going to make the most of the latest digital sensors feels like a false economy.<br />

<br />

My suggestion is to get to a camera store and play with the current low end cameras from Nikon and Canon (and Pentax, if you can and aren't worried about the availability of some of the more obscure lenses). See whether you can cope with the one-dial interface and a pentamirror finder. I switched from Canon to Nikon a while back, but I'd suggest you try both and see what feels right to you - unless you look at a Df (which is a lot of money), nothing will feel like an FM10. Whatever my advice, you may find you hate the low-end models and prefer old technology in return for two-dial handling and a pentamirror (which would cost you a lot more in a current model).<br />

<br />

If you're switching to digital and giving up on film, I'd then put my lenses on ebay and buy whichever system seemed more appealing. Possibly also try the mirrorless systems, although the current handling and price doesn't make me think they should be your first choice, as Lex seems to. Get a used low-end system with a kit lens or two (the 18-55 and 55-200 would more than cover your current range), and you should be sorted for a while. Pretty much any recent digital camera is extremely good - just check something like dpreview.com for the details. How it feels to you is probably more important than any specification differences.<br />

<br />

If you want to keep using your current film camera and really want those lenses on Nikon, I suspect you'll be okay with any low-end Nikon camera, with the understanding that it won't give you any metering information (you just need to take the shot and then check the result - so you may have to have a few goes at any image). Or you could adapt the lenses to Canon or a mirrorless system. I suspect it'll be more work than it's worth, I'm afraid, but you can do it. Good luck.</p>

<p>I'm going to avoid getting in to the Nikon-Canon debate and just focus on what the OP originally asked about. If you could find a used one for your price point, a used D90 would be a great DSLR to go for. I know a couple of wedding shooters where their backup body is an old D90. It's a body that isn't great at one thing but does everything solidly and it just runs...and runs...and runs..and runs. <br>

Now, you're probably not going to find a D90 for the price you're looking for. The D70 is a good camera. Terrible at low light and that's its' big negative. Otherwise, pretty solid and reliable, Nikon's effort to get back in the game with the prosumer DSLR so great sync options. A D70 would be a fine camera for your purposes.</p>

<p>Just to clarify a point about Joe's suggestion: The D90 has no aperture feeler ring, and will not meter with AI or AI-S lenses (that aren't also chipped). I'm reasonably convinced that the <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/3570mm.htm">35-70</a> and <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/eserieslenses/htmls/70210mm.htm">70-210</a> are both AI (-S, in the case of the E-series 70-210) - I can't speak for the Vivitar. The D90 is a perfectly good, if slightly elderly, camera (and it offers a decent finder and a two-dial interface), but from a compatibility perspective with these lenses, it's no better than lower-end models. It does have a screwdriver motor for older AF lenses, however.<br />

<br />

The D70 is equivalent for compatibility (no AI follower ring, AF motor), though it has a pentamirror finder - which is dimmer but lighter. 6MP is arguably a bit low these days, and with any old camera, make sure you watch out for dead batteries and the cost of any unusual media. Ken Rockwell's site does have a decent camera/lens compatibility chart - the fact that the opinions and out-of-date reviews are interspersed with useful information is what makes Ken's site frustrating (if it was <i>all</i> rubbish...) Nikonians also have a <a href="http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility">table</a> if you prefer.<br />

<br />

There are advantages to some older cameras compared with newer, lower-end models (some things cost a lot to put in a camera no matter the vintage), but there are also advantages to more recent technology. Take your pick according to your own priorities. Unfortunately, $200 is going to be pretty compromised no matter your route (though selling the old lenses might help).</p>

<p>Brandon,</p>

<p>Almost a year ago I was stuck in a similar situation to you, but my ultimate requirements were different. I was about to go off on a walking holiday and needed a smaller camera than my SONY Alpha series DSLRs and lenses. Somebody suggested I get a small Canon or Nikon DSLR for around your figure of $200 (roughly £130), but I could not find that mythical beast at that price.</p>

<p>So thinking outside of the box for a bit, having owned an Olympus OM1 way back when, I took a look at the Olympus 4/3rds range of cameras and after a bit of bidding on eBay, I acquired an Olympus Evolt E-510 camera and two lenses for £130 plus carriage. This is a 10 Megapixel beastie, which as has been said is more than enough for most sane people. But in looking back it is one of the most accomplished cameras I have ever owned! Having got focal lengths from 14 to 150 over the two lenses, which with the 4/3rds sensor relates to 28 to 300 I am more than happy. It takes both the Compact Flash and XD memory cards; I got 2 X 2Gigabyte cards with the camera along with some useful filters, so for most photographic purposes I am well set up. These days the Olympus has become my 'grab and go' camera. What I find most amazing is that for a smaller camera the battery is actually larger than the Sony and gives me a good 500 shots before it needs a recharge.</p>

<p>There are lots of good reviews about of the camera and if you want the definitive article on how to set it up then you can get it here http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/e510-sett.html The author Andrzej Wrotniak is a good authority on these and other Olympus cameras. The Olympus Master software is also one of the best camera makers packages around IMHO and if you don't get the CD with the camera, all is not lost, you can download it and the camera manual from the Olympus site on the Web.</p>

<p>So this is my answer to your query in a roundabout way, if you sold your existing package or just kept it for film, then you could get this alternative for about the budget you talk about. It also means you stick with a true DSLR if that is important to you, but you get the mirror-less benefits like Electronic Live View too.</p>

<p>Best regards<br>

Jim</p>

<p>I bought a D200 just so I could could use my manual lenses, and it works well with them. At $225 from KEH, it's a bargain, and is a 10MP camera. Also, I like the base ISO of 100. It is far ahead of the D100, D70, etc. and is a pro-level body, as well.</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone!</p>

<p>I went ahead and looked around at all of the Nikon bodies and dSLRs as well as my current lenses. I think my best lense is the 28mm Wide Angle f/2.8 Vivitar and I heard it's about 43mm on a 1.5 CF sensor. This means if I chose a camera which could use the same lenses as my film camera (I will continue to shoot film as well), then I would be able to start out with lenses and get a good prime lens later on. The point is I can use the lenses I already have on either camera, film or digital, for the time being and build a small collection in time for digital. So far, I think I'm enjoying the 28mm Wide Angle (though I hear it is more like a 43mm on the 1.5x CF sensors). I think one of the guides here recommended a 50mm prime to learn with first, so this is helping me learn for now.</p>

<p>So, in a way, I bought a body for the lenses, but it has a few things I like as well. I got a used D200 with a shutter count of around 9,500. It came with a battery and charger, but the guy also sent me a ton of other items such as a Digital Field Guide book, manual, cheat sheets, LCD glass covers, plastic covers, control panel glass, and 3 CF cards in a hard-shell carry case! So far, I'm very happy with it.</p>

<p>The exposure metering works with my lenses and drops down to ISO 100 which I like. I think it will be a good learning and backup camera if I decide to continue moving forward with this. If I don't, then I've got a great camera that will definitely take some good pictures (well, as good as I do anyway) for a few years without worrying about if I break a $1-2000 camera, lol...(I tend to go up trails, climb rocks, and stuff haha).</p>

<p>One thing I am curious about is how can I just grab my camera and snap a shot if something crazy happens in town or outside when I'm just walking around? I'm still shooting in all manual mode, so that would be difficult to nail a fast shot. Is Aperture Priority mode a reasonable setting for photography or should I only use Manual mode to learn "real" photography? Hard enough to focus a shot with manual lenses, AP mode might be faster :o</p><div></div>

<p>I also recommend the D200. I bought one used (from a local camera store) last year for $250. One reason was that it works with AI lenses the right way, that is, in both M and A modes.<br>

There is no reason that any of the cameras shouldn't meter in M mode, but Nikon just built them so they wouldn't. A mode requires the ring to sense the position of the AI aperture ring, which the D200 has, but models like D40 through D70s don't. I thought the D300 also had it, but haven't looked recently. That will be even more expensive. I am also not sure about the D90 and D100. (Look on your FM10, you will see a ring just behind the lens mount that turns when the aperture ring turns. You want a camera with that ring.<br>

The original FM has a little button that will move the AI index tab out, so that you can mount pre-AI lenses. The D200 doesn't have that, so you can't use such old lenses on it. But the price on used AI lenses is low enough, that you don't want to. <br>

The older lenses will mount on the cameras without the ring, such as the D70s, but as noted above you need to meter with an external meter. Most of those lenses are really cheap, unless they have collector value. <br>

If you have AF lenses for your FM10 (but the FM10 won't autofocus with them) then the D70s would be a fine choice.</p>